In Depth

In a decision that may affect child support modification orders, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today an earlier Indiana
Supreme Court decision also applies to a request for a modification because of incarceration.
In Todd Allen Clark v. Michelle D. Clark, No. 35A05-0801-CV-26, the appellate court used the Indiana Supreme Court's
decision in Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007), to determine whether Todd Clark's verified petition for abatement
and/or modification of child support order should have been granted.

In Lambert, the Supreme Court held that incarceration doesn't relieve a parent of his or her child support obligations, but
a court should calculate the support based on the actual income or assets the parent has instead of pre-incarceration wages.

Clark was ordered to pay $53 a week in child support; however, after that order was issued, Clark became incarcerated and
made less than $21 a month in his prison assignment job. Clark filed the verified petition, requesting the court reduce his
child support obligation until he is released from prison because his incarceration has created a substantial change in circumstances
that warrants the modification.
Under Indiana Code Section 31-16-8-1, a modification may be made upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and
continuing to make child support payment terms unreasonable. Even though caselaw holds that incarceration due to voluntary
criminal conduct isn't a valid reason for abating or reducing an existing child support order, the Indiana Court of Appeals
judges believed the Lambert decision has changed this precedent.
"Although our supreme court limited Lambert specifically to the initial determination of a child support order, we now conclude
that its rationale applies equally to a request for modification of a child support order based on changed circumstances due
to incarceration," wrote Judge Patricia Riley.
Even though the appellate court found changed circumstances, the court is aware that parents have an abiding duty to provide
support for their dependent children, and as such, they held the support obligation of an incarcerated parent should be set
in light of that person's actual earnings while in prison.
Also using Lambert as a guide, the Court of Appeals adopted the practice of incorporating a prospective provision in child
support orders involving incarcerated parents to automatically return the support obligation to the pre-incarcerated level
upon the release of the parent, she wrote.
As such, the court reversed the trial court denial of Todd's petition and remanded.
Judge Margret Robb dissented, writing it was the Supreme Court's exclusive province to expand the parameters of Lambert to
include the issue presented in this case.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.